Totally valid point, but what I what ponder is the extent to which blockbuster movies (specifically the recent onslaught of sequels) consume the shared resource

Totally valid point, but what I what ponder is the extent to which blockbuster movies (specifically the recent onslaught of sequels) consume the shared resources available to make quality films; i.e. talent (videographers, actors and actresses, directors, etc.), available slots for films that theaters have, the audience's time, and mainly studio budgets. Indie films can exist symbiotically; and I think they have been successfully. It seems like there are many more movies, of all varieties, available today than any other time in history. Although, I can't help but think about what we don't have as a result of YASM (yet another superhero movie). You could also argue that adding to the coffers with a "sure-thing" provides more money to create new and innovative films, but I suspect currently that profits go into bonuses, getting the same actors back again and again, and production of the next "sure-thing". I think there are a lot of movies now, but a lot of "bad" ones. The "good" ones are either "more-of-the-same-good" or exposed to very small audiences. Which may be less desirable for a diverse and interesting culture and society.